View Single Post
  #8  
Old December 12th 04, 11:57 PM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:08:14 -0800, hoarse with no name
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets.
But they don't (or soon won't).


This thread began as a discussion of British military decisions and my
comments were in regard to this. The Brits are currently moving away
from harrier carriers to long carriers and one of the reasons given is
to increase the sub-killing powers of their carrier force.


Err, how?

The CV(F) will be carrying JSF, which has no capability against
submerged subs, Merlin, which does not require a big deck, and the
future replacement for the AEW Sea Kings, which also don't require a
big deck (and also don't kill subs).

So where's the extra sub killing coming from?


More importantly, where was it ever stated that the larger size of CV(F)
was to increase the ASW capability? I've been following it reasonably
closely,and the only claim I've ever seen made (and a valid one) is that a
bigger carrier is far more effective at the power projection which CV(F) is
designed to provide for the UK, as opposed to the purely defensive origin
of the Invincible's design.

Guy